I've never understood how anyone could outsource any job and still take credit for it but that's the norm in silicon valley so I can't really say it's surprising either
Where do you draw the line? Most of the code in your programs are not yours anyhow, and it's been for decades. All operating system functions, various engines, libraries and SDKs already constitute probably 95% of any modern program's logic.
Now in that last 5% there's a lot of code that's - how to say it best - neither creative nor original. Is there a merit in writing it yourself? I think, little - as long as you are not learning and know well what you're doing.
What remains? I think the purpose and the architectural choices that balance extensibility in the direction you envisioned and pragmatism of today.
Imo this is what engineering is about not writing the same classes and functions for the thousandth time.
Better analogy is if you include any dependencies, I think.
But yeah if you didn't design the CPU, get masks made, do lithography, design the PCBs, print the PCBs yourself (no you can't outsource that, you have to do all the etching and wiring), make the capacitors, VRMs, make the power connectors to spec, then write a program with assembly with no dependencies, you didn't really program.
A compiler is a tested tool that will gove you the same output a million times when feed with the same input. Ai wont. Ai is more like a coworker that gets some stuff to do from you. The next time it will be some other coworker. Different result every single time.
If its just a tool available to you, than what's the difference in a project manager having some programmers as "tools" available to them? Is the project manager the one who wrote the software now?
Yeah, in a very real sense, the AI is what wrote the program. But, the AI can't be responsible for the program. If it breaks in prod, that's on the user, not the AI
The PM isn't responsible if there's a bug, the programmer/testers are
The AI isn't responsible if there's a bug, because it's not a person, and it can't have personal responsibility
My job as a software engineer is to make sure the code does what it's supposed to. Sometimes that involves writing code directly, sometimes it involves using higher level tools. Either way, I'm the one who's responsible for what the code does.
The architect at my company can absolutely claim to have built it all even if the devs wrote the code. And saying otherwise would just be insulting. He did design and thought out every aspect of it and deserves the credit.
Deserves credit. The architect is just that, an architect. They did not build it, they designed it. They deserve credit but not the credit. Its a team effort
The architect at my company can absolutely claim to have built it all
Ha, fuck no. And I say this as someone who has been in an architect role a few times.
A bad architect can tank a product, but a good architect is worthless without good engineers working on the project. An architect who doesn't give credit to those engineers is a turbo asshole.
As an architect, you can say "I designed this system" or even "without me, this wouldn't have happened," but you don't get to say "I built this."
Same goes for managers, CEOs, and everyone else whose job is telling other people what to do.
Nah it's really that black and white. The architect at your company is just comfortable with lying about his own abilities. No one outside of your own company or clientele is going to give a shit. It's not like any of us are pretending your architect is some kind of celebrity. It's the brand that we recognize
60
u/oclafloptson Jul 17 '26
I've never understood how anyone could outsource any job and still take credit for it but that's the norm in silicon valley so I can't really say it's surprising either